Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Luke

[Silk Fiji]

Luke 7 plagiarizes 1 Kings, showing the Gospels to be false.

This is plagiarism:

It happened after this . . . (Kings 17.17)
It happened afterwards . . . (Luke 7.11)

At the gate of Sarepta, Elijah meets a widow (Kings 17.10).
At the gate of Nain, Jesus meets a widow (Luke 7.11-12).

Another widow’s son was dead (Kings 17.17).
This widow’s son was dead (Luke 7.12).

That widow expresses a sense of her unworthiness on account of sin (Kings 17.18).
A centurion (whose ‘boy’ Jesus had just saved from death) had just expressed a sense of his unworthiness on account of sin (Luke 7.6).

Elijah compassionately bears her son up the stairs and asks ‘the Lord’ why he was allowed to die (Kings 17.13-14).
‘The Lord’ feels compassion for her and touches her son’s bier, and the bearers stand still (Luke 7.13-14).

Elijah prays to the Lord for the son’s return to life (Kings 17.21).
‘The Lord’ commands the boy to rise (Luke 7.14).

The boy comes to life and cries out (Kings 17.22).
‘And he who was dead sat up and began to speak’ (Luke 7.15).

‘And he gave him to his mother’, kai edōken auton tē mētri autou (Kings 17.23).
‘And he gave him to his mother’, kai edōken auton tē mētri autou (Luke 7.15).

The widow recognizes Elijah is a man of God and that ‘the word’ he speaks is the truth (Kings 17.24).
The people recognize Jesus as a great prophet of God and ‘the word’ of this truth spreads everywhere (Luke 7.16-17).

[jimwalton]

Well, let's look at this a little closer and more responsibly.

First, you are placing the Luke verses in order, but you're bouncing all over 1 Kings 17. Are you claiming Luke likewise bounced all over the 1 Kings chapter to pull a phrase like "he's dead"? That's a bit of a strange claim.

But I'll roll with it for now, as odd as it seems.

Luke 7.11. Luke uses ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς ("soon afterwards")
LXX 1 Ki. 17.17 uses μετὰ ταῦτα ("After these things")

Where's the plagiarism?

Luke 7.12. Jesus meets a widow, whose son is dead.
1 Ki. 17.10. You've moved backwards in this text to make your theory work. But her son was dead? No, actually. It wasn't the widow's son who died (v. 10), but "the son of the widow who owned the house (17.17).

Just perhaps widows were common in the ancient world. Where's the plagiarism?

Luke 7.6. Now you've popped to a completely different story. The centurion shows humility before Jesus, recognizing his authority. "That is why I didn't even consider myself worth to come to you."
1 Ki. 17.18: You claim she expressed a sense of unworthiness because of her sin. But if you actually read the verse (and I wonder if you have), she's bitter and angry, feeling that she is being unfairly judged: "Did you come to remind me of my sin and kill my son?"

This is not plagiarism, not even close. None of the same terms are used. Not even the same concepts.

Luke 7.13-14. Now you've popped back to the original story. Jesus's heart was tugged in her direction (Luke says "καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν ὁ κύριος ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ’ αὐτῇ": "And upon seeing her the Lord was moved in his bowels (their expression for compassion) towards her." In the Gospels, compassion and pity are often mentioned as the motives for Christ's miracles (Mt. 14.14; 15.32, etc.)
1 Kings. 17.21. Elijah stretches himself out on top of the dead boy and prayed three times for God to resurrect him. There is no mention of Elijah's feelings or attitude.

These are nothing alike. This is not plagiarism. This case of yours is not holding water.

Luke 7.14. Jesus uses his divine authority to command the boy to rise, and he does rise. Jesus says, "σοὶ λέγω, ἐγέρθητι." ("I say to you, arise.")
1 Ki. 17.22. God answered Elijah's prayer, and God (not Elijah) raised the boy. The LXX says, "καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως καὶ ἀνεβόησεν τὸ παιδάριον" ("And it came to pass that the child was resurrected.")

Where's the plagiarism here? In one case Jesus raised the boy by his own power. In the other, Elijah prayed for God to raise the boy and He did. That's not plagiarism.

Luke 7.15. "καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ." "And He gave him to his mother."
LXX 1 Ki. 17.23: "καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ" And he gave him to his mother."

Finally an identical wording.

Luke 7.16-17. The people were amazed. I would be, too. They recognize Jesus as "a great prophet" (Προφήτης μέγας) is in their midst, and they spread the news.
1 Ki. 17.24. The woman recognized him as a man of God (didn't use the word "prophet" or "great") and uses the phrase "the word of the Lord from your mouth is the truth." None of these words or concepts are in Luke.

Plagiarism? Not even close.

And, I would add, most of the words and concepts in Luke's account have no parallel in the 1 Kings story. You've picked around the text to try to make a point, but all of it except the phrase "and he gave him to his mother" washes out in the laundry.

You know what? This case of yours is as leaky as the Titanic.